"Friday politics talk. Do Democrats want purity or do they want to win?"
Morning Joe hit on something I've been thinking about for a while.
There's some dude running as a Democrat for mayor in Omaha, Nebraska. A lot of Democrats are pulling their support for him because 8 yrs ago he supported a state senate bill requiring doctors to tell women getting abortions that they had a right to ask for an ultrasound.
That Congressional candidate in GA a few days ago apparently wasn't ideologically pure enough to garner Bernie Sanders' support.
The question is, does a candidate need to have 100% scores on all the progressive benchmarks to be an acceptable candidate? Does the culture/values of their constituency not matter.
About month ago here, someone was saying the Joe Manchins of the Dem party gotta get out now. What other person that will vote with the Dems 75% of the time win in West Virginia??
If progressives demand purity, ain't no Democrats ever going to win seats in Kentucky, Arkansas, Bama, because if the go full on progressive they will be out of line with the values of those populations.
So yeah, do Democrats want to win seats? Or do they want to be pure?
Also talk whatever politics shit that's on your mind here (I fully expect this to go straight balsa)
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79824 posts
Fri Apr-21-17 11:20 AM
11. "if that was the case they would hold their nose and vote" In response to Reply # 1
but too many times Dems would rather be right and lose than be a little wrong and win.
Just Win Baby should be the motto.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
Democrats haven't won the white voting bloc since the Civil Rights act. So purity politics isn't the issue. It's elevating the voices of people that are antagonistic to the views of their most consistent voting bloc (women, people of color, and black women in particular). The only people shouting purity politics are white men who won't lose anything of value by conceding women's health rights or civil rights of minorities. To them, those items are negotiable, to the people they need support from those are core issues.
I can't tell you what to do, but personally I feel only a fool regurgitates the views of Joe Scarborough.
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
8. "Lol. These are my views. Joe just said it out loud today" In response to Reply # 3 Fri Apr-21-17 11:04 AM by PimpTrickGangstaClik
Politics have become too national in my opinion. The congresswoman is supposed to represent the wants and values of the people in her district. Not that of the entire nation.
The mayor represents just his city, not the nation. Actually now that I think of it, why the hell are the mayoral candidate's abortion views even an issue? That's not even a local issue.
Anyway, there are some districts that won't tolerate full on Sanders/Warren progressivism. But they will tolerate an economic progressive + moderate social views. The purity folks will say that's not good enough and refuse to put their support behind such a candidate who has a chance to win and vote the progressive line 70% of the time.
9. "All politics are national" In response to Reply # 8
The idea that they're not is idealism. National Rights for Life, ALEC, and the NRA amongst MANY other national groups push legislation through on local levels, and support local candidates as a mean to normalize them.
Look at Brownback in Kansas for how taxes become national, look at how the voting roll purges in Kansas are being replicated in Indiana.
So we can't even start with "these are local issues" because they're not. Much like body camera issues, stop and frisk issues, stand your ground issues aren't local even though they only get immediate attention when they make national news.
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79824 posts
Fri Apr-21-17 11:24 AM
13. "no.. that's not true at all" In response to Reply # 9
Politics are local. Most of our gov impact is by local government.
We just get fooled into thinking it's national and this is states like NC went backwards.
Obama won and people stayed home during midterms and we have been trending backwards ever since.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
Politics are local in the same way states rights are brought up when a state wants to fight federal funding.
How Mayor Bowser of DC runs the metro is local How Mayor Turner of Houston declares Houston a sanctuary city is national The illusion of local politics vs national politics is how it's 2017 and we still have sun down towns in the United States.
We want our local politics to be local issues, stop lights, general crime, law enforcement policies. But since the days of Reagan, when the country shifted to union busting and wide spread migration based on industries and tax breaks we haven't had local politics.
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
16. "What is wrong with you,????" In response to Reply # 13 Fri Apr-21-17 12:10 PM by handle
>Politics are local. Most of our gov impact is by local >government. > >We just get fooled into thinking it's national and this is >states like NC went backwards. > >Obama won and people stayed home during midterms and we have >been trending backwards ever since. >
Someone RUNNING FOR CONGRESS is on the NATIONAL STAGE.
This is not an alderman election, or local dog catcher.
WTF??
And remember republicans lost the VOTE (but no the election) by 3 million votes AND they lost seats in the senate - so it's not that "THE DEMOCRATS" are losing elections - it's that Republicans seek naked power better.
Their philosophy of life is built for that.
EDIT: unless your only talking about the mayor of Omaha, then I'm a fucker.
17. "I think he's saying the important politics are localized" In response to Reply # 16 Fri Apr-21-17 12:13 PM by PimpTrickGangstaClik
But too much attention is put of national politics.
And yes, someone running for Congress is running for national office. But should we really expect (demand) that a Dem running out of a district in San Francisco to have the same platform as someone running out of Atlanta?
18. "But folks aren't saying have the same platform just don't negotiate w/co..." In response to Reply # 17 Fri Apr-21-17 12:22 PM by MEAT
Issues. And women's health and civil rights are core issues. And that's where I return to, if women and doctors aren't advocating for a women's health care procedure then it's not the politicians place to legislate or find middle ground with negotiation on it.
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79824 posts
Fri Apr-21-17 12:31 PM
19. "does local gov or national gov have more of an impact on daily life? " In response to Reply # 16
you can't look 12 states over into the Midwest and expect them to be just as liberal as you are in Mass.
As long as they are voting with Dems the majority of the time I think you have to overlook a few votes that may not be in line with your views.
Especially when the other party's candidate is 99% against your views.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
Obviously nobody in the Democrat party has all the answers or the right articulation of the platform, or they wouldn't be losing all these elections.
The question is, do Democrats want to keep losing in the way that they've been losing since the 60s? Do they want to keep "winning" without enough of a mandate to ensure reforms happen and last?
It doesn't seem like enough, and the voters clearly don't think it's enough. So supporting candidates willing to take bolder stances seems natural. It's not about purity tests.
27. "Ask the person that introduced the legislation " In response to Reply # 26
Fulton introduced the bill, Mello cosponsored.
It was in response to a bill requiring an ultrasound if they want an abortion.
Two men then offered a compromise bill that said, it just requires the physician to tell the patient it's available.
So now we're back to where I started. Did women ask for this, did doctors ask for this?
Once the Republicans staked their claim as being pro ultrasound for non medical reasons the Democrats could've stated that they are firmly against that and for the privacy of the patient, and the freedom to be a doctor. Instead they opted to bargain on women's health.
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
31. "I see zero wrong with making sure she knows it's an option if she wants." In response to Reply # 27 Fri Apr-21-17 07:23 PM by Jon
You might have an argument if it was the original idea of a requirement, but the compromise is beyond reasonable to the point where it sounds wholly unreasonable to oppose it.
53. "Wrong" In response to Reply # 39 Sun Apr-23-17 06:52 AM by Jon
An ultrasound is something many women have wanted, including many of those who were seriously leaning towards an abortion. This isn't politicians deciding what information is relevant to women's health, it's them recognizing something that many women said was relevant to them when dealing with an emergency pregnancy...And simply trying to ensure that they know it's available to them, and it's up to them.
For example, a state wants to pass a Blue Lives Matter law which increases the punishment for killing a cop. Progressives fight it because of the Blue Lives Matter framing of the issue and the republicans get to say, "see, progressives hate cops". Better to not give a shit about such a troll bait issue. Let them have the law that only effects people who kill cops.
This is troll bait because it isn't the same as requiring women to have ultrasounds but it kind of sounds and feels like requiring women to have ultrasounds. So people get worked up and fight it and republicans get to argue, "see, dems want to keep available information from women to keep them uninformed when making decisions about abortion."
These issues have more ideology value than they actually affect peoples lives.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
20. "Yup. its a tactic conservatives have mastered" In response to Reply # 7
hide behind some phony concern, and put those who disagree on the wrong side of it, and as you said, it works like a charm
they'll say voter ID is necessary to stop voter fraud. and it does sound perfectly reasonable on the surface, but aside from voter fraud being rare as fuck, it has zero to do with their reason behind wanting voter ID laws.
"we just want her to have all available information" is more of that same bullshit. it's hostile
25. "Yeah, but its also genuinely revealing that pro-choice are bothered by i..." In response to Reply # 7 Fri Apr-21-17 04:30 PM by Jon
IF it's about maximizing a woman's agency, then making sure they are informed of their options should always be a welcome idea. The fact that this would be something we don't want, indicates a greater desire to promote abortion than to empower the woman.
Troll move or not, it only works it it genuinely bothers the other side, which it shouldn't if the pro-choice camp is what they claim to be.
35. "What did the actual bill do? Avoiding that is the duck." In response to Reply # 33 Sat Apr-22-17 08:08 AM by Jon
And the intent of the bill was to arrive at a compromise position between two sides, one side who believes you should see who you're thinking of killing before you have them killed, and the other side who believes there is no "who" involved and seeing the fetus could make her change her mind and we don't want that, and you get a perfectly reasonable compromise where an ultrasound is available IF a woman herself wants one. Totally her choice, based on her own personal feelings about it, but the doctor just has to inform her that it's an option.
You judge a compromise proposal on its own merits, not the merits of what you believe the extreme ideal bill would be of some who proposed or supports it. Otherwise, there's absolutely no possible way to ever arrive at any kind of compromise among legislators, and we can't have a functional congress.
If you're against *this* bill, you have to argue on *this* bill's merits, not debate what you think are the inner deep fantasies of the people involved might be.
38. "you're not understanding both sides" In response to Reply # 35
the other side isn't about there not being a "who"
the other side is about "women choosing to get abortions are capable of making their own decisions. there are already enough factors shaming, intimidating, gaslighting, and just plain making things difficult for these women. we don't need to legislate more."
if mandating shit like this is a priority for you instead of fixing healthcare and equality for everyone, you're not about compromising.
44. "You're making things up now" In response to Reply # 38 Sat Apr-22-17 05:05 PM by Jon
>if mandating shit like this is a priority for you instead of >fixing healthcare and equality for everyone, you're not about >compromising. : Mandating what? The only mandate is that women are informed by a doctor that they have the option to get one, and honestly, most regular everyday people really don't know their options inside and out, so making sure they know it's available to them is benign as fuck. There's no mandate to have one. Just to tell them they can if they want.
Furthermore, you're taking a giant erroneous leap to presume that this would be my priority over fixing healthcare for everyone, and my own priorities we're never discussed here. I vote almost exclusively for pro-choice candidates even though I mostly disagree with them on this issue, exactly because I see many other things as priority. Put your strawman collection away.
51. "It's not assuming women need to be told what to do" In response to Reply # 48
As it's not mandating to tell women what to do
It's only rightly assuming that not every woman who walks into a clinic during an emergency pregnancy knows what options are available to her.
And in no way whatsoever is it hurting anybody to simply let her know an ultrasound is available if she wants one, even if she happens to already know that.
43. "nah. hiding behind "we're just trying to help" is the duck." In response to Reply # 35 Sat Apr-22-17 04:50 PM by Mynoriti
the goal of both a forced ultrasound, and a doctor being forced to "tell her about the option" is to discourage abortion by making her feel shitty. being less dickish about it doesn't change what it is.
42. "is a woman somehow not allowed to get an ultrasound without the bill?" In response to Reply # 36 Sat Apr-22-17 01:59 PM by Mynoriti
it may not be a huge thing, but pretending this has anything to do with wanting to help a woman to make an informed decision is disingenuous. there's only one reason for this bill to exist.
54. "again, if the goal was transparency/education/awareness" In response to Reply # 52 Sun Apr-23-17 09:46 AM by rob
why not start there?
what does sex education look like in schools? how much do ultrasounds costs in the u.s. versus the rest of the world? how about the costs of the entire pregnancy and birth? how available is healthcare to women in rural america? is it becoming more or less available because of recent legislation? how long do women get to stay in the hospital? how about maternity/paternity leave?
look, i know you've been consistently obtuse on this, but this is not about the option of the ultrasound. this is about making life difficult for people even though they have a constitutionally protected right. moralizing on other issues would be considered a huge, ridiculous burden.
do we suggest people kill a cow or watch a slaughter to eat a hamburger? do we suggest people watch psas from porn stars' disapproving relatives before videos play? do we suggest people put on a fat suit before ordering a soda? do we suggest people enlist in the army before voting for a war hawk? do we suggest people participate in public funerals for all the civilians killed in drone strikes? do we suggest people evict poor people personally to move into a gentrifying neighborhood? do we suggest people strangle a turtle every time you throw away plastic? do we suggest people see pictures of dead toddlers before buying a gun?
i mean what's the harm in all that if you still get to make your choice afterwards?
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
21. "they are the worst branders and marketers anywhere" In response to Reply # 0
Conservatives will always have an intrinsic advantage because they manipulate people's fears, usually false fears that don't have a basis in reality. There is always an other, a boogeyman, someone coming to get you if we don't stop them.
The democrats should have been driving home a message of fear for the last 40 years: Fear of Conservatives and how they are the ones responsible for oppressing and profiteering off the working class and poor. It's an uphill battle in a racist country which makes it even more important to have a consistent message for years and years and years.
Republicans script their shit like "Remember The Titans", Democrats barely have a script, it's more like a boring powerpoint no one wants to sit through.
24. "Conservatives took L after L in the Culture Wars and it made them " In response to Reply # 21 Fri Apr-21-17 03:02 PM by Teknontheou
sharpen their skills and come up with tactics that work well. So they basically lost all of those battles, but now they know how to fight a bigger machine. When that's the position you're in, it's only a matter of time before the winds blow favorably and you start getting a bunch of W's yourself.
23. "The Democrats don't feel "behind" because they control Academia and" In response to Reply # 0
they are the face of the media and Hollywood, plus they control local governments in all the big cities. So everywhere that Democrats and liberals go or spend time and everything they watch or read, it all reflects them and their values and worldview. The temptation is to say "we're in control, we shouldn't have to alter anything about ourselves!" The problem is that's inaccurate, as evidenced by all the political control the Republicans have won since Obama became president.
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Fri Apr-21-17 05:24 PM
28. "We're fracturing exactly like the Republicans did." In response to Reply # 0
People get so deep into their bubbles that they don't realize that that's where they are. They actually start believing their wishful thinking about the state of the nation, and expect to get more progress on their issues than could have ever been possible.
These Republicans are tripping over the simplest things because they can't control their base, and we can't capitalize on it because we're doing the exact same thing.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
